The court ruled that restrictions on minimum-term reviews comply with the ECHR.
Child offender sentences have been at the centre of a Supreme Court ruling which has upheld legislation restricting access to minimum-term reviews for some people detained after committing murder while under 18.
The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed Jesse Quaye’s appeal in R (on the application of Quaye) v Secretary of State for Justice [2026] UKSC 34, holding that sections 27A and 27B of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 are compatible with Articles 5, 7 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The judgment was given on 22 September 2026.
The appeal concerned the sentence of detention during His Majesty’s pleasure (DHMP), which applies to people who commit murder while under the age of 18. DHMP is an indeterminate sentence with a minimum term fixed by the trial judge. Once the minimum term has been served, the case can be considered by the Parole Board in relation to release on licence.
Mr Quaye committed the offence on 10 May 2014, when he was 17 years and nine months old. He was convicted in November 2014, aged 18 years and three months, and sentenced on 16 January 2015, when he was 18 years and five months. The sentencing judge imposed DHMP with a minimum term of 15 years.
The case arose from changes to the system of minimum-term reviews. Until February 2021, the Secretary of State operated a policy allowing people sentenced to DHMP to apply for a review after serving half of their minimum term. The purpose was to consider whether the minimum term should be reduced as an act of clemency in light of exceptional progress in custody.
In February 2021, the policy was revised so that offenders who were over 18 when sentenced were no longer eligible to seek such a review. Parliament subsequently introduced sections 27A and 27B into the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 through section 128 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. The provisions came into force on 28 June 2022 and limited minimum-term reviews to people who were under 18 when the DHMP sentence was imposed.
As Mr Quaye was 18 when he was sentenced, he could no longer apply for a review when he reached the halfway point of his 15-year minimum term on 15 March 2022.
Mr Quaye challenged the legislation under Articles 5, 7 and 14 of the ECHR. The Divisional Court had found the legislation incompatible with Articles 5 and 14, but the Court of Appeal overturned those declarations. The Supreme Court then considered the issue following Mr Quaye’s appeal.
On Article 5, which protects the right to liberty and security, Mr Quaye argued that removing the possibility of a minimum-term review made his continuing detention arbitrary. The Supreme Court rejected that argument.
The court explained that the DHMP sentence had changed substantially through legislation. Under the modern statutory framework, the sentencing court fixes the minimum term and the Parole Board considers release once that term has been served. The court held that there is no longer an inherent requirement for the Secretary of State to keep the court-fixed minimum term under continuing review. It also held that Article 5 does not require all indeterminate sentences imposed on children to be subject to periodic review.
The Supreme Court also rejected the Article 14 challenge. The legislation creates different treatment based on the offender’s age at the time of sentencing, but the court held that this difference was objectively and reasonably justified.
In reaching that conclusion, the court considered the nature of the legislation and the role of Parliament in setting prison and penal policy. It also noted that the review process involved victims’ families being contacted and given an opportunity to provide a new Victim Personal Statement. The court accepted that repeated review applications could be extremely distressing for victims’ families.
The court concluded that the legislation pursued the legitimate aim of alleviating that distress and that there was a rational connection between the aim and the distinction drawn by Parliament. It held that Parliament had struck a fair balance between Mr Quaye’s rights, the rights and freedoms of others and the interests of the wider community.
Finally, the Supreme Court rejected the Article 7 argument. Article 7 prohibits the retrospective imposition of a heavier penalty than the one applicable when an offence was committed. The court distinguished between a measure that amounts to a penalty and one concerning the execution or enforcement of an existing penalty.
It held that Mr Quaye’s original penalty was indefinite detention with a minimum term determined by the sentencing court and the possibility of early release after that term. The later legislation did not change the sentence imposed by the court. Instead, it changed how that sentence was to be executed or enforced. The removal of the opportunity to seek a minimum-term review therefore did not amount to the imposition of a heavier penalty.
The appeal was dismissed unanimously. Lord Stephens and Lady Simler gave the judgment, with which Lord Sales, Lord Briggs and Lord Hamblen agreed.